#leadertypes

[jjbizconsult]

What is Your Leadership Style? Charting Your Course on the High Seas of Success

[succulentsunrise]

First: congratulation for the milestone & keep up (y) ! Second: who are your top ten favorite black clover characters and ships (platonic or romantic)? talk about them! (yes I already sent you this ask earlier this year but you were behind in the anime and I thought you may enjoy answering this again)

Hello again! 🥰🥰 I'm glad to hear from you again! I hope you've been well! ❤️

My top ten are obviously affected by those characters that we have seen more of recently. That's why some characters have dropped off the list in favour of new characters or have dropped further down / gone further up. (Sorry Mimosa and Noelle, I still love you!)

It became a little long, so I put it under a readmore!

1. Mereoleona Vermillion

Mereoleona continues my strong favourite due to her passionate way of living, fiery attitude and absolutely chaotic nature! She is strong, encouraging (though not always in kindest way) and she steals my heart away.

Honorary mention: As I like Mereoleona, so do I like Fuegoleon, and their dynamics together. Fuegoleon is the charismatic leadertype, and I'm glad they let it show in the manga/anime!

2. Charlotte Roselei

Especially now that I've written for her, Charlotte has a special place in my heart. I really think she is an amazing character, and her slowly modifying and overpowering her own curse is just - badass. I quite like my own headcanons for her (her being a perfectionist / really caring for the girls in her squad and being protective of them / having a tendency towards wanting to be in control) and they've solidified my image of her.

3. Finral Roulacase

Finral is such a sweet and caring boy, who is really growing to his powers. The recent chapters where he fights alongside Langris got my really excited: I really liked them and would've liked to have seen more! I am a sucker for "I'm good for nothing" characters starting to believe in themselves and prove others wrong and for sibling dynamics.

Honorary mention: Langris has really started to grow on me as well. What an arrogant, sweet boy. Stop insulting your brother and tell him you love him too.

4. William Vangeance

There's something about tragedy that compels me. William made horrible decisions in his life while trying to still be kind and do his best for the nation. It's fascinating to me how he thought this would work out. I like to imagine that he really is a gentle soul, but just horribly, horribly mistaken about some steps he took in life. Like...a lot of them.

5. Nacht Faust

See above: there's something about tragedy. He is such an edgy character and reminds me of a friend I knew once - never believed in good in people, but believed that people can do good things. Maybe that's why I like Nacht.

Honorary mention: Morgen, Morgen, Morgen, I loved you and I wish you were still here. He would easily be at the top of this list if he just...you know, appeared.

6. Grey

Grey is another one of those characters who are slowly growing on me. She is so adorable and sweet, and she is slowly coming out of her shell. It's amazing! I can't wait to figure out what's going on with her powers.

7. Gadjah

He is dutiful, he is almost deadpan, he is protective and just...a good person. I really like that. He is loyal, and I like loyalty. His good looks definitely add to the picture as well...

8. Dorothy Unsworth

I'm a little sad that we haven't gotten as much from Dorothy, but I am hoping it is still coming...maybe? Please? She is intriguing with her bright persona in dream-space (and sometimes out of it), and I really like her design. She is so fluffy!

9. Vanessa Enoteca

Vanessa is given the flirty stereotype, but I am so glad she was given so much more than that: she is resourceful and independent despite her origins (where becoming dependent on other people could've happened very easily!). I wonder where her story will go.

10. Marx Francois / Magna Swing

I have a soft spot for Marx, but also for Magna. Both are hard-workers who I feel are not always appreciated as much as they should be. They are very different characters, but this one part really endears them to me. Go Magna! Go Marx!

Then to relationships. These are a little more difficult for me, and majority might be platonic! I didn't quite have 10 that came to mind, so have 8 instead

1. Platonic Finral & Langris

The brothers are slooooooowly bonding! I talked about this already at Finral's place, but I just really, really like that they are slowly reconciling the trauma their parents gave them.

2. Platonic Finral & Vanessa

They have great synergy whether just joking around or actually fighting. I've loved the composition of them for such a long time. I can just imagine them complaining to each other while lying on the sofa, or Vanessa teasing Finral, or her giving him tips to style his hair - the possibilities are endless!

3. Platonic Mereoleona & Fuegoleon

They butt heads, they argue, they protect each other, they care for each other. A truly feisty sibling dynamic, but one that still lets it shine through that they like each other. They grew up together and had normal sibling rivalry and jealousy and stuff. It makes me feel bad a little for Leopold, who had to grow alone with older siblings. It's hard to catch up to them.

4. Platonic Nacht & Morgen

I'm not sure what to say or why they are this high up - I like sibling dynamics, maybe because my own sibling dynamics are a burning dumpster fire. They are so different, and yet they are close to each other. It's such an interesting relationship and I wish Morgen appeared more so we could've seen more of it.

5. Romantic (?) Grey x Gauche

They encourage each other to be better. I could easily see them as platonic or romantic, but lean slightly towards romantic. They have already history of helping each other, play well off of each other, and the recent events have really cemented their connection. They are the "intimidating partner and shy partner" trope all over.

6. Yami x Charlotte (romantic):

They are kind of a cute pair, aren't they? In my headcanon, it's like a waltz: Yami is leading, though he doesn't quite know the steps, and Charlotte follows along uncertainly, because while she knows the steps, she is trying to figure out where Yami is leading this dance to. The result is a mess.

7. Platonic (?) William & Yami

I put a "?" because I could also see them romantically, but for now, I will discuss them mostly as platonic buddies. They've risen in the ranks together and clearly care for each other: Yami didn't feel much hesitance in asking William rather sensitive questions, and he didn't mind answering them. They are so opposite in some ways, it's a fun dynamic.

8. Romantic Gadjah x Lolopechka

They are a canon couple now, but I've seen relatively little of them, which is why they are so down here. They are cute, I think!

[lettersandinkstains]

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Aster:

* She was born to a peasent woman who nannied Sage, which is why the two were close friends.

* (spoilers) She actually died as a very young child from illness, but was sent back by an unnamed goddess because “she still is needed”

* Very bookish, and not at all athletic. Gets winded very easily, and has what the Scholars call “the lung disease” (asthma).

* Sucks at attack type magic, but does very well with healing! Her aim is super terrible, but she’s doing her best!!

Sorrel:

* Despite his seeming undying loyalty to his kingdom and the king, he is known to waver a lot in faith.

* Means well, but struggles with understanding what might be right. Incredibly tunneled vision.

* Is very good at understanding animals--is absolutely in love with his horse, whom he raised. Her name is Shadowfire.

* Not a very good leadertype. He’s more of a follower, but wants to be in command of the knights though he still has a lot of work ahead of him.

* Often looked down upon by his superiors. Not so much because he’s weak, he’s quite skilled with a sword and archery, but because he gives up very easily if it means he could spare someone from being hurt. (Will not kill just because someone is the enemy).

Nyx:

* Has two younger siblings she would kill for

* She was orphaned at a young age. Her father was killed in a raid, and her mother died of an unknown illness. So, she was forced to grow up at the tender age of nine, and care for her siblings, but she had help from her village, especially a close by family, who were struggling themselves.

* The only other character who is not of nobility.

* Can talk to Dragons--knows and understands the “Old Language”

* Not really an animal fan. They’re cute, but eh.

Zephyr:

* Vegetarian/Pescatarian

* A joyful young person, incredibly charismatic.

* Very evenly tempered. Not much gets under their skin.

* Empathetic! They’re also very intune with what people are feeling around them.

* A great cook! They are pretty much the reason, right now, why Sage and Nyx have not died of starvation.

Sage:

* Has a calm demeanor. Likely screaming all of the time on the inside.

* Is able to grin and bear it.

* She’s quite the liar. 

* When she was younger, she really wanted to join the Knights, and went as far as insisting she be taught how to fight with a sword, but was always turned down or told to go away since it’s not the princess’s place to fight. One person, however, took pity on her and did teach her some basic stuff and she still admires her to this day (and has no idea that her sudden disappearance is because her father had the woman executed. Great family, really.)

* Not very good at picking up on subtlties. She’s very unobservant sometimes in her attempt at remaining optimistic and idealistic that she forgets to read the atmosphere and to read people’s body language. It’s almost baffling how she would rather pretend things can be fixed when they likely can’t be.

(Bonus: She has a major guilty complex).

[ginwhitlock]

(edwardseffervescentsnails)11, 15, 31😊

Thank you!

Yes! I’m listening to Heavy In Your Arms by Florence + The Machine

Ooo this is a hard one. I think I’d call myself quite headstrong and leadertype— I’m very Type A and have very strong opinions on how things should be done and why. I express myself in humor and creative things.

When I was born the doctor asked my mother if she could hurry up and deliver so he could catch a golf game he had— and somehow she did, I am terrified of even small heights, and I’m allergic to citric acid.

Ask me something!

[impossible-3d]

Programming Gem: Separate means of iteration

I’ve started working on my secret programming project in earnest, which I’ll reveal in full once I have the basics working.

My main philosophy of programming is that if you have an idea in your head, then good programming means putting that idea down in code as is, without having to compromise the idea just to please the particularities of whatever language you're using. You can imagine my thrill when I realized that - by pure coincidence - the D Programming Language happened to share this exact philosophy.

And it shows. Looking through their standard library feels a bit like a child feels like looking around in a candy store. There's a library facility for just about any common programming task, such as automatically generating classes (yes, classes) that automatically implement the abstract methods of an abstract class for your unit testing pleasure, or wrapping an existing type in a class that behaves exactly like the original type but has ADA-like strict typing.

Hacker types who are fans of low-level programming are not left out either with library features that facilitate bit-twiddling such as Bit Fields or using the unused bits of a size-aligned pointer to store data.

I could spend another hundred paragraphs gushing about the language, I haven't even mentioned its language-level unit testing and documentation features, contract programming or scope-level imports. The main focus of this post will be a specific language feature - that is the customizability of the foreach language construct.

In my project I found it necessary to iterate over two ranges and match the element in one range with an element from the other range that is structurally in the same place. This is not always the same thing as iterating on both ranges and matching their current elements - if you're walking two binary trees for example, it's extremely plausible that on the third iteration one tree will be on the right child of the root while the other tree will be on the left child of the left child of the root. This is on the same iteration, but not in the same place structurally. As such, it is necessary for one range to "lead" and the other to follow its exact motions. I use the most naive and inefficient implementation for now - I assume that both ranges have an index which stores a means of getting to the same place structurally, relative to a root element. The resulting code looked something like this:

MatchData matchData; foreach(const index, const ref leaderElement ; leaderRange) { ref FollowerType followerElement; try { // Try to find the element that is in the same structural place in the follower range followerElement = followerRange[index]; } catch (RangeException e) { static if (skipInvalidPairs) { continue; } else { followerElement = null; } } bool hasMatch = leaderElement.Match(followerElement, matchData); if (!hasMatch) { return Nullable!MatchData.init; // return null } } return Nullable!MatchData(matchData);

There are a few unmentioned D-isms here such as static if (which is basically a compile-time if a-la conditional compilation), and Nullable, which basically takes a value type and augments it with the ability to have a null value (which we use when no match occurs).

But look at it! Almost three quarters of the loop body have nothing to do with the actual work being done - it's just bookkeeping and code dealing with loop control! Going back to our basic philosophy of programming, good programming means putting down an idea in code in the same form as it exists in your head. In this case, it's roughly "Iterate over the structurally matching elements of two ranges and match those elements to each other".

Constructs like the original for loop facilitated this by at least taking the loop control code out of the code that did the actual work, and the foreach construct improved on this by abstracting away the means of iteration compeletely, and we only need to specify the range over which we wish to iterate. The obvious solution, then, would be to create a custom range to iterate over only the structurally matching elements of the two arrays (or a null in the follower element, depending on settings). The problem is that such a range would presumably iterate over pairs (or two-tuples) of matching elements, and we would have to spend time retrieving the first and second elements of those pairs, which is more bookkeeping code that we shouldn't have to do, even if it's massively less than our original monstrosity, I wanted more. I wanted zero bookkeeping in the code that does the actual work.

Thankfully, D is a programming language that I would describe as free-spirited. It doesn't (for the most part) arbitrarily limit your use of its constructs, which is what makes it massively powerful. It allows you to do things like importing things in a certain scope, or using all of D's own language constructs to generate code via string mixins, but the possibilities don't end there. You may have noticed in the above code that D supports specifying an index variable as well as the iteration variable, which is an expected feature of any modern programming language. The caviat is that D allows you to overload this functionality, so that the foreach iteration can be whatever you like, and so can the two variables you specify. You can even overload over the number (up to two) and type of loop variables, so that different combinations yield different iterations. The details of how this can be done is detailed in this chapter of Ali Çehreli's excellent book Programming in D.

Here, I will only show my use of this feature. Therefore this programming gem is not so much my idea as it is a demonstration of one of D's many amazing features. What I wanted to do is define a class that takes two ranges and provides a foreach iteration for elements that are in the same place structurally in both ranges. I also wanted to be able to specify whether to present nonmatching elements as null or skip them altogether. I could also add additional options such as ending the iteration or throwing an exception when such a mismatch is encountered, but for simplicity I will stick with the skip/don't skip solution. With this feature implemented, we have truly reached (or almost) the ideal iteration where we only need to specify the options of our iteration, and then merely write code that does the actual work, with zero bookkeeping code.

Well, without further ado, here is the implementation of such a range:

struct TogetherRange(LeaderRange,FollowerRange, bool SkipInvalidPairs = false) if (isInputRange!LeaderRange && isInputRange!FollowerRange) { public: alias LeaderValue = ElementType!LeaderRange; alias FollowerValue = ElementType!FollowerRange; this(ref LeaderRange l,ref FollowerRange f) { m_leaderRange = l; m_followerRange = f; } int opApply(int delegate(ref LeaderValue,ref FollowerValue) loopBody) const { int result = 0; foreach(const index, ref LeaderValue leader ; m_leaderRange) { ref FollowerValue follower; try { follower = m_followerRange[index]; } catch (RangeException e) { static if (skipInvalidPairs) { continue; } else { follower = null; } } result = loopBody(leader, follower); } return result; } private: LeaderRange m_leaderRange; FollowerRange m_followerRange; } template Together(LeaderRange,FollowerRange, bool SkipInvalidPairs = false) if (isInputRange!LeaderRange && isInputRange!FollowerRange) { alias RangeT = TogetherRange!(LeaderRange,FollowerRange,SkipInvalidPairs); RangeT Together(ref LeaderRange l, ref FollowerRange f) { return RangeT(l,f); } }

For brevity this class is missing its obviously needed range iterator methods, which need to be generated based on what methods both ranges support, which is too much irrelevant code to what this post is really about. The opApply function takes a delegate which is the loop body (similar to std::for_each of C++ fame) and surrounds that with its own code for the actual iteration part. You can see the beauty of seperation of concerns here - this whole opApply function is merely a means to separate out the bookkeeping code from the loop body that does the actual work. Our loop handling code is now nicely and completely sepearated from code that does the actual work, enablind us to merely request the proper means of iteration and then do our work undisturbed. The final foreach loop that uses the above class looks like this:

MatchData matchData; foreach(const ref LeaderType leaderValue, const ref FollowerType followerValue ; Together(leaderRange, followerRange)) { bool hasMatch = leaderValue.Match(followerValue, matchData); if (!hasMatch) { return Nullable!MatchData.init; } } return Nullable!MatchData(matchData);

This code now only concerns itself with specifying the means of iteration and then doing the actual work. As a result, our code is much cleaner and easier to understand. The loop body in the foreach above gets turned into a delegate and passed to the opApply method of our TogetherRange class. Of course we neglect to do a few things, such as handling the case then followerValue is null, but whether we should do that in the loop body or not is the same as a simple question - does a structural mismatch that would lead to such a case affect the loop control, or does it affect how the work is done? If it affects loop control, then it's better delegated to the range via an option (skipping mismatched elements or bailing out of the loop on a structural mismatch is such a decision). On the other hand if it merely affects how the matching is done (against a nonexistent element), then it is best left to the Match function. One could argue that even returning on a failed match is something best left to another part of the code - for example the matching rule could be extended by an option that tells it how to handle matching against nonexistent elements, or it could even be tasked with handling match failures altogether (such as making any matching rule optional - so that only the matching for that single element is discarded, rather than the entire collection of match elements).

But I'm just rambling now, and there's lots of more basic work to be done before a coherent system arises from this little project of mine. However, my hope is that once a basic version is up and running, it will be able to do some awesome things.

[typologycentral]

Populism and Extraverted Sensation

Extraverted sensation (Se), which we all have to varying degrees, is particularly suited to the rough-and-tumble world of politics. When political leaders bring out this function-attitude, we see a pragmatic, energizing facilitator of movements. Adept at sensing where the ‘heat’ is, these types pick up on what the masses are feeling and leverage that energy towards an end. When the function is dominant in a politician’s type, a populist mentality often emerges. Just as extraverted sensation seeks to experience and connect with its environment, populism in its purest form is like a dance between a politician and the masses: a symbiosis born of intense interaction with the political landscape as dance floor. When operating in a partisan milieu, political leaders would be well advised to draw on their extraverted sensing function. Extraverted sensors naturally attune themselves to their externals. They notice the lay of the land. They are especially aware of their immediate surroundings, perceiving threats and opportunities in the moment—typically reacting almost without thinking. In leadership, these types (ESTP, ESFP) are most characterized by bold, proactive moves. They seek quick wins. They act with agility and speed in a crisis. If there is no crisis, they may create one just to deal with it. Theirs is a constant state of readiness. In scans of the brain when engaged in extraverted sensing activity, Dario Nardi’s research revealed a “tennis hop” pattern: continuous low-level activity, the way a tennis player lightly bounces foot-to-foot, indicating an alacrity for anything that comes along. In short, extraverted sensing leaders value action, variety, urgency, spontaneity, resourcefulness, experimentation, adaptation, empowerment, and efficiency. That’s extraverted sensation at its best. Extraverted sensors at their worst, in the grip of their inferior function, miss the deeper meaning of their actions and long-term consequences. As leaders they struggle with the long view. They prioritize the urgent over the important. They discount the value of a strategic vision or plan, and they disdain any rigorous planning process. Their impatience with detailed policies or procedures can cause them to miss critical steps on a checklist, for example. Another typical weakness is a lack of self-awareness—especially not grasping their own life’s purpose—as their conscious energy is directed to what’s outside them. In extreme cases this external attention can lead to materialism, hedonism, and dependence on external stimulation. Finally, extraverted sensors seem to be especially susceptible to emotional triggers, such as status (sensitivity to personal slights), autonomy (resistance to being managed), and relatedness (a tribal loyalty). Populism and Presidents Eight former U.S. Presidents with a preference for extraverted sensation share a distinct leadership style: Populism is particularly prevalent among Proactive (Se) LeaderTypes in the political domain with good reason. They are constantly surveying the situation to see where threats and opportunities lie—in this case, among the body politic. Once having sensed the political landscape they are amazingly adept and agile in responding—some would say reacting—to their environment. In (Andrew) Jackson’s case, riding the wave of popular will. (Keahey, 2018)Populism has acquired a negative reputation, and this is especially true now with the presidency of Donald Trump, but many other political leaders have used extraverted sensing tactics and policies to rally the cause of the common man. This is true not only of Andrew Jackson—in whom extraverted sensation (Se) seems to be dominant—but also of Lyndon B. Johnson and Theodore Roosevelt. Both LBJ and Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated a penchant for populist causes in their policies and programs. Andrew Jackson, the “People’s President,” facilitated the United States becoming a true democracy. Theodore Roosevelt brokered a “Square Deal” between management and labor, essentially lifting the factory worker’s status vis-à-vis the corporate baron. LBJ had a natural affinity for the poor from growing up in rural Texas, and his experiences informed his War on Poverty, resulting in his Great Society legislation. Nevertheless, populism does not always have noble aims and often has unintended consequences. Populism has been defined in a number of ways. Some see it as a political strategy in which a charismatic leader appeals to the masses while sweeping aside institutions, but not all populist movements have such a leader. Jan-Werner Müller, a political scientist at Princeton University, thinks populists are defined by their claim that they alone represent the people, and that all others are illegitimate (The Economist, 2016). Müller made important distinctions among populists, such as inclusive and exclusive varieties. While exclusive populism focuses on defining and shutting out stigmatized groups such as refugees, inclusive populism demands that stigmatized groups like the poor and minorities be included in the political process and that policies reflect their needs and issues. Another political scientist at the University of Georgia, Cas Mudde (2015) offered a definition that has been increasingly accepted: he views populism as a “thin ideology” that merely sets up a framework of a pure people versus a corrupt elite. He contrasts it with pluralism, which accepts the legitimacy of many different groups. This thin ideology can be attached to all sorts of “thick” ideologies (e.g., socialism, nationalism, anti-imperialism, libertarianism, or even racism). In a democracy, populism as the ‘will of the people’ can trump all other movements. Some think populism began with the Populist Party of the 1890s, but that is only when it gained a capital letter and a political platform. The American Revolution, specifically the Boston Tea Party, could be viewed as a populist uprising leveraging the collective power of the people against the British crown to protest taxation without representation. The Antifederalist movement of the 1780s is another early example of populism, rallying against the perceived threat of the United States becoming a monarchy, leading to the Bill of Rights. The Jacksonian period saw citizens fighting the perceived tyranny of banks and landholders over common farmers. Obviously, populism is not new, but the 2016 presidential election saw a tsunami wave of populist sentiment from both directions, left and right: Bernie Sanders, a self-described ‘Democratic socialist,’ or inclusive populist per Müller’s framework, and Donald Trump, an exclusive populist running as a Republican. These candidates show how different populists can be: although both were anti-establishment, the only similarity in their campaigns was criticism of free trade deals. Former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) said, “In truth, the ‘populist anger’ fueling Trump’s coalition is fundamentally different from Sanders’ ‘progressive populism.’ The superficial similarities between the two end when they talk about solutions.” Pulitzer-Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson (2018) went even further: The idea of Donald Trump as some sort of Man of the People was laughable from the start—a boastful plutocrat who lives in a gold-plated aerie above Fifth Avenue, claiming lunch-bucket solidarity with factory workers and coal miners. He sold it, though, largely by cementing a racial and cultural kinship and shamelessly misrepresenting his intentions.What Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Have in Common Journalist Michael Kazin (2016) questioned how a term—populism—could describe both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and still have meaning: “Trump’s ‘populism’ is a brilliant piece of performance art but one that bears little resemblance, even in style, to the capital-P kind.” Personality type can provide an answer. Populism, in its purest form, means engaging and facilitating the popular will of the masses. If the external environment is the body politic, and the goal of the movement is power to the masses, then populism can be viewed typologically as an expression of the extraverted sensing (Se) function in politics. Jung (1971/1921) described the type governed by extraverted sensation as follows: No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation type in realism. Since one is inclined to regard a highly developed reality-sense as a sign of rationality, such people will be esteemed as very rational. But in actual fact this is not the case, since they are just as much at the mercy of their sensations in the face of irrational (emphasis added), chance happenings as they are in the face of rational ones. This type … naturally does not think he is at the mercy of sensation. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. (¶ 606)Populism shares this irrational aspect with the Se function: populist movements are characterized by enjoyment and social interaction, and populists are good at perceiving the environment around them. They are aware of how they are triggered emotionally and are typically adept at triggering others in terms of status, autonomy, relatedness, and/or fairness. These are the ‘sensations’ to which populists appeal and by which they rally the masses. In politics, the extraverted sensing type’s natural strength is being attuned to the will of the people. These types (ESTP, ESFP) tend to be restless, opportunistic, and expansive in dealing with the political landscape. They sense where power lies—in the masses—and typically perceive this in a vertical dimension: haves versus have-nots, whether privilege, wealth, power, status, etc. The judging function of this type, if developed, reveals its populist rallying cry: either a defining idea (Thinking) or a shared value (Feeling). When the dominant extraverted sensation of a populist movement is combined with the values and morals of introverted feeling (Fi), the movement takes a decidedly moralistic tone and may focus on income inequality or class issues. When combined with the ideas and principles of introverted thinking (Ti), it takes on a more libertarian, autonomous tone. The exclusive populist has an affiliation with ESTP preferences, and the inclusive populist with ESFP preferences. Subsets of populism include libertarianism, in which the organizing principles (Ti) are autonomy and minimalism, and socialism, in which the organizing values (Fi) are egalitarianism and fairness. Both argue for power to be distributed to the masses. The inferior function of the dominant Se type is introverted intuition (Ni), and the same could be said of populist movements. In his Memoirs, David Rockefeller (2009) made this insightful comment: “’Populists’ believe in conspiracies and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world’s economy” (p. 405). Their belief that power is concentrated in a few and that these few have a nefarious intent reveals how the shadow of extraverted sensing types can manifest in politics. Michael Kazin (2016) described how paranoia emerged in earlier populist movements: “To explain society’s ills, they invoked ‘a vast conspiracy against mankind,’ engineered by a plutocratic cabal.” In this way an ESFP movement (inclusive populism) can project its unconscious fears onto an INTJ-like nemesis. By contrast, when Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the dominant function for a movement, e.g., in progressive parties or environmental/green parties, it can provide an idyllic vision of the future. The political power to secure and protect that visionary ideal becomes paramount, so an extraverted judging function is needed to balance it: if thinking (Te) is the auxiliary, it manifests in institutional structures, systems, or bureaucracies which protect those in power and control the masses; if feeling (Fe) is the auxiliary, it manifests as political parties and/or religious or social organizations where group norms and values are upheld as the ‘rule’ (i.e., establishment). If the visionary ideal remains the core of the political movement, the corresponding shadow (Se) will always lurk in the deep as an image of restless masses ready to rise up in irresponsible self-gratification and chaos, representing the Ni type’s nemesis. This resistance to extraverted sensation can lead to elitism. Subset examples of elitism include nationalism and fascism where the judging function based on the vision (Ni) sorts people into categories and establishes structures/systems/plans to implement that vision (Te); or democratic idealism where political parties debate and reach consensus on the premises of deliberation, pluralism, and reciprocity (Fe). The latter represents the United States’ realization of democracy. It also helps explain why Andrew Jackson (with preferences for ESTP) was so successful in his populist pursuits as president, and much of why Jefferson called him “a dangerous man”: Jackson represented the kind of leader who could empower the masses and encourage their worst impulses. Jung (1953/1968) himself said: ” … for the masses are blind brutes, as we know to our cost” (¶ 563). Andrew Jackson, an Extraverted Sensing Populist Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) emerged from his youth not only a fighter, but a survivor. Barely a teenager in the Revolutionary War, Jackson’s survival depended on a keen awareness of his surroundings. He was particularly gifted at interpreting Native American communication and movements in the wilderness. The necessity to act in emergent situations with speed and agility naturally developed his Se function. Jackson was the epitome of energetic action, often overstepping boundaries—literally. He fought 138 duels before becoming president, probably more than any other president, which won him a bad reputation among his peers. His sedate, boring plantation life precipitated a midlife crisis and the need to remake himself and his reputation. He brought himself out of ‘early retirement’ and into military service with the War of 1812, forging a persona as a war hero. He pushed the Seminole people back into Florida (then owned by Spain), and went so far as to capture Pensacola, completely without any authorization. Jackson had many starts but not a lot of finishes: he was the first U.S. senator from Tennessee but only lasted six months, and the first governor of Florida, in which office he lasted only a few months. Governing bored him. Running for president did not bore him. After losing a bitter, hotly contested race to John Quincy Adams in 1824 via the House of Representatives in what became known as the “Corrupt Bargain,” he almost immediately began campaigning for the next election, which he won. As president, Jackson led what was essentially America’s second revolution. His bold, experiential, and immediate leadership style triggered a reconsideration of what constituted the United States. He urged a return to a simpler, more frugal, minimalist government. His political instincts were honed to an extraordinary level as he stoked populist flames with a fervor. Jackson’s is often called the first modern presidency because of his belief that the president is not just an executive but a representative of the people, much like a congressman but for all the people rather than those of a specific district, earning him the nickname “the People’s President.” He sensed a oneness with the body politic: he embodied their desires. This strong connection was reflected in a constant feedback loop. He listened to their concerns and believed he reflected their wishes. He stoked their passions and was himself energized by them. This is the nature of the extraverted sensing politician: being so connected with the populace, he or she experiences a solidarity with the people, a belief that “I am them” and “they are me.” Donald Trump, A Jacksonian President? Many political leaders have imitated Jackson’s strongly populist philosophy—especially when stoking us-versus-them sentiments among the downtrodden against the rich and powerful. Countless candidates since Jackson have claimed rags-to-riches stories, promised reform, or vowed to make the will of the people an end justifying any means. Whatever their desired result, every president after Jackson, thanks to his example, exerted the full power of a democracy: expressing—and when authentic, personifying—the unambiguous will of the people (Keahey, 2018). The similarities with President Donald Trump are striking. The difference between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump is type development. Jackson developed many more functions than his dominant function of extraverted sensation (Se): * Te-6th, extraverted thinking: Jackson, as a soldier and later as a commander, was given to swift, sure execution of plans. * Ti-2nd, introverted thinking: Jackson served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, where he defined and articulated his principles, among them his strong belief in individual liberty. His judicial appointments clarified many of his ideas and beliefs. * Si-5th, introverted sensation: Jackson was a fiscal conservative. He reorganized the banking system and is the only president to completely pay off the national debt. * Ne-8th, extraverted intuition: During his presidency, he lived through and facilitated many changes—wars, geographic expansion, and a variety of anti-corruption policies, including “rotation of office” to prevent nepotism and dynastic succession. * Fi-7th, introverted feeling: He strictly adhered to his own moral code, and he took personal offense at any questioning of his morality or behavior. His authenticity and self-sacrifice built a tremendous loyalty among his troops and political cronies. * Ni-4th, introverted intuition: His 1837 Farewell Address prophetically warned of the dangers of sectional fanaticism between the North and the South. Toward the end of his life, he could envision where things would lead. President Trump shows less evidence of development than Jackson. What is visible is one-sided extraverted sensation: a dominant function without an auxiliary; considerable extraversion without much reflection; in short, a type without balance. Frank Bruni (2016) of The New York Times wrote several articles proclaiming Trump to be a ‘pretend populist.’ Donald Trump’s one-sided expression of extraverted sensation in excess is what Mr. Bruni perceives as populist pretense: Trump shows the Se dominant type’s desire to make an impact, enjoyment of sensory pleasures, and focus on the present moment. When these attributes are used constructively, they enable an Se individual to develop quick reflexes, take jobs that would frighten others, read the public mind, and provide a realistic perspective. But without the balance of judgment, such attributes become toxic. Lack of judgment has enabled the president to glam onto whatever idea (Ti) or value (Fi) reflects the ideas or values of his base and to promote his agenda, his brand, and himself at the expense of the people he leads. The British documentary filmmaker Louis Theroux (2016) said, “I think Donald Trump’s had a pattern of leaping on the bandwagon of anything that he feels will further his candidacy, and if that means sowing more fear and paranoia and playing into a kind of xenophobic populist strain, then that’s what he will do.” The ascendancy of Donald Trump was nothing short of a political marvel. According to an op-ed in The New York Times, Donald Trump’s presidency “represent[s] a stunning moment in American politics—the triumph of a raw populism, embodied by a shameless demagogue, over both the official establishment and the official ideology of a major political party” (Douthat, 2016). From Populism to Mob Mentality How did this happen? Seth Godin’s book Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us suggests that a populist ‘tribe’ is perennially taking applications. And should the person the tribe chooses have a developed Se without an auxiliary judging function to provide principles or morals, then he/she, will perceive the public’s pain or fear, latch onto it, and attempt to steer it. Pure populist leaders find a tribe of angry or passionate people and ride that wave to its crest. They are surfing the body politic for the ‘next big one.’ Extraverted sensing types are adventurous thrill-seekers: they want to be where the action is, engaging and interacting with others, stirring movement. Probably one of the best explanations of how this is done comes from the film The American President in which fictional President Andrew Shepherd describes how to foment the passion and prejudices of a crowd: “[By] making you afraid of [something], and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections” (Sorkin & Reiner, 1995). Once the masses become activated in their passions, little can be done to inform them, as Jung (1959/1969) pointed out: No doubts can exist in the herd: the bigger the crowd the better the truth—and the catastrophe. … The psychology of a large crowd inevitably sinks to the level of mob psychology. If, therefore, I have a so-called collective experience as a member of a group, it takes place on a lower level of consciousness than if I had the experience by myself alone. (¶ 225)That Donald Trump relishes the political give-and-take and the jousting-and-jabbing invective of Twitter is obvious. The immediacy, the attention, the emotionalism, and the large reach of social media give him concrete enjoyment—the raison d’etre of an extraverted sensing type. Variety is the spice of life for an Se dominant type. “There is no standard operating practice with this administration,” said Sen. John Thune (R-SD). “Every day is a new adventure for us” (Paletta & Dawsey, 2018). The White House is in a permanent state of flux because the Se type loves being in motion and being in the moment, unconstrained by past policies or future concerns. “Trump is a self-proclaimed dealmaker who has struggled to close critical deals as president—an unreliable negotiator who seems to promise one thing only to renege days, or even hours, later” (Paletta & Dawsey, 2018). When a populist leader lets the adoration of the masses consume his ego and thinks himself (or herself) invincible, it can lead to authoritarianism. Jung (1953/1993) spoke to this inflation: An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued with. It inevitably dooms itself to calamities that must strike it dead. (¶ 563)Perhaps the lesson for politicians is this: Before the shadow of your political movement arises in inopportune, messy ways, consider embracing the opposition and holding the tension of opposing views. May we all do our individual work with respect to our political views, in attempting to truly understand the interests and needs of our opposition. Note: Readers can get a 25% discount on Cash Keahey’s Eight LeaderTypes in the White House: Discover and Leverage Your Oval Office Leadership Style at the Itasca Books website through the end of the year. --- References: Bruni, F. (2016, November 26). The pretend populism of Donald Trump. The New York Times. Douthat, R. (2016, July 17). A Cure for Trumpism. The New York Times. Economist. (2016, December 19). What is populism? London: The Economist Group Limited. Godin, S. (2008). Tribes: We need you to lead us. New York: The Penguin Group. Theroux, L. (2016, June 16). Interview, T. Jones, Interviewer. ABC News, Lateline. Jung, C. G. (1968). Psychology and alchemy (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (H. Read et al., Eds.), The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 12). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1953) Jung, C. G. (1969). Archetypes and the collective unconscious (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (H. Read et al., Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 9, Part I). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959) Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (H. Read et al., Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921) Kazin, M. (2016, March 22). How can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both be ‘populist’? New York Times Magazine. Keahey, C. (2018). Eight leadertypes in the White House: Discover and leverage your Oval Office leadership style. Inspire On Purpose Publishing. Mudde, C. (2015, February 17). The problem with populism. The Guardian, U.S. edition. Paletta, D. & Dawsey, J. (2018, March 1). ‘Every day is a new adventure’: Trump upends Washington and Wall Street with shifts on trade, guns. The Washington Post. Robinson, E. (2018, February 12). Trump tells a lot of little lies. This is the big one. The Washington Post. Rockefeller, D. (2003). Memoirs. Random House. Sorkin, A. (Writer) & Reiner, R. (Director). (1995). The American President [Motion picture]. Warner Brothers. Tancredo, T. (n.d.). Tom Tancredo quotes. BrainyQuote.com Images: Andrew Jackson. Retrieved from https://sos.tn.gov/products/tsla/and...son-collection Bortnyik, S. (1926). Boxer. Retrieved from wikiart.org Chagall, M. (1948). Now the King Loved Science and Geometry. Retrieved from wikiart.org Filonov, P. (1915). Defeater of the City. Retrieved from wikiart.org Macke, A. (1911). Circus. Retrieved from wikiart.org Macke, A. (1911). The Storm. Retrieved from wikiart.org Rivera, D. (1930). Entering the City. Retrieved from wikiart.org The post Populism and Extraverted Sensation appeared first on Personality Type in Depth. RSS Feed - Link To Personality Type In Depth Article https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98130&goto=newpost&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr